Ex parte Textron, Inc. et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re:Alabama Boating Centers et al. v. Textron, Inc. et al)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/14/11 N o t i c e : This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n before p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e Courts, 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 1100032 Ex p a r t e T e x t r o n , Inc., e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Alabama B o a t i n g C e n t e r s , I n c . , e t a l . v. Textron, (St. LYONS, Clair Inc., e t a l . ) Circuit Court, CV-10-81) Justice. Textron, Inc., Textron M. R e g a n p e t i t i o n this Court Financial Corporation, f o r a w r i t o f mandamus a n d James directing 1100032 the St. Clair selection Boating clauses, Centers, Martin Court claims to dismiss, asserted Inc.; Ryan Center, Boating B i l l y M. and Circuit Inc.; Creek based against them petition in part, Factual Ryan LLC; grant recreational Donald F. i t in part, and and boats an to issue Procedural boats Boating"); under ("Logan that Martin"), recreational i t has name. i s also an Alabama to to us Martin are independent owners and that entities that sell It sold Creek Inc. recreational Center, sells from Boating and Delaware corporation with Logan the same ("Textron F i n a n c i a l " ) i s a headquarters 2 of the officers. Textron F i n a n c i a l Corporation some Inc. that appears share Creek Centers, corporation Alabama writ. Ryan Boating consumers. presented documents boats the that 2007, to Martin deny ("Ryan In continued Logan We the A c q u i s i t i o n s c h a n g e d i t s name t o A l a b a m a B o a t i n g ("Alabama Acquisition corporation consumers. Inc.; History Inc. Alabama Logan Center, Seibert. Acquisitions, was Alabama A c q u i s i t i o n s , Inc.; Ryan C r e e k B o a t i n g Background Creek Acquisitions"), and forum- by C o s p e r , J r . ; A n d r e w J . K a u f m a n n , J r . ; ABM Development, on in Rhode Island and 1100032 offices of in several Textron, corporation On with ("the Textron Financial Textron headquarters parent"), i n Rhode is a also and security agreement"). Financial would finance that interest that in agreement w i t h The i n v e n t o r y and a Delaware Island. 2006 Textron Financial agreement Ryan Creek provided that Textron F i n a n c i a l would inventory and in receive other of debt. 11 o f t h e 2 0 0 6 a g r e e m e n t g r a n t e d T e x t r o n F i n a n c i a l default collateral paragraph by Ryan made t h e stated, in Creek Acquisitions, s u b j e c t of the ("the Textron security to a of security Ryan Creek Paragraph the right, repossess interest. part: " I f an e v e n t o f d e f a u l t o c c u r s , S e c u r e d P a r t y s h a l l have a l l o f t h e r i g h t s and r e m e d i e s o f a s e c u r e d p a r t y under the Uniform Commercial Code and any other a p p l i c a b l e laws. Debtor agrees that Secured P a r t y may, b y i t s e l f o r t h r o u g h an a g e n t , w i t h o u t n o t i c e t o any p e r s o n and w i t h o u t j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s o f any k i n d , e n t e r i n any p r e m i s e s o r upon any land owned, leased, or o t h e r w i s e under the apparent c o n t r o l of Debtor, where s e c u r e d p a r t y b e l i e v e s the c o l l a t e r a l may b e , a n d d i s a s s e m b l e , r e n d e r u n u s a b l e a n d / o r r e p o s s e s s a l l o r any i t e m s o f t h e c o l l a t e r a l . Debtor e x p r e s s l y waives a l l r i g h t s to p o s s e s s i o n of the collateral after default and a l l c l a i m s f o r injuries s u f f e r e d t h r o u g h or l o s s c a u s e d by such 3 into A c q u i s i t i o n s ' purchase A c q u i s i t i o n s ' a s s e t s to secure the r e s u l t i n g upon subsidiary D e c e m b e r 5, 2 0 0 6 , R y a n C r e e k A c q u i s i t i o n s e n t e r e d a credit 2006 Inc. states. the That 1100032 i n j u r y o r r e p o s s e s s i o n by S e c u r e d P a r t y . Debtor s h a l l , u p o n demand by S e c u r e d P a r t y , a s s e m b l e the c o l l a t e r a l and r e t u r n i t t o S e c u r e d P a r t y a t a p l a c e d e s i g n a t e d by S e c u r e d P a r t y . " Paragraph 16 of forum-selection the 2006 agreement contained the following clause: " T h i s A g r e e m e n t s h a l l be g o v e r n e d , construed and e n f o r c e d i n accordance w i t h the laws of the State of Rhode I s l a n d w i t h o u t r e f e r e n c e t o c o n f l i c t o f l a w s principles. Debtor consents to the exclusive jurisdiction o f t h e C o u r t s o f t h e S t a t e o f Rhode I s l a n d , s i t t i n g i n P r o v i d e n c e , Rhode I s l a n d and t h e U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t Court f o r the D i s t r i c t of Rhode I s l a n d f o r a l l p u r p o s e s i n c o n n e c t i o n with t h i s Agreement. D e b t o r h e r e b y w a i v e s and a g r e e s n o t to a s s e r t any o b j e c t i o n t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f any such Courts, i n c l u d i n g the o b j e c t i o n of i n c o n v e n i e n t forum." B i l l y M. F. Seibert Cosper, J r . , Andrew J . Kaufmann, J r . , and personally guaranteed Ryan obligations u n d e r t h e 2006 a g r e e m e n t . agreements included the selection clauses: "This construed i n accordance Island, without Creek Acquisitions' Each of t h e i r following choice-of-law Guaranty with, reference the to shall laws be applicable and State conflict principles. Guarantor consents to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of Island Rhode courts in 4 connection guaranty governed of the Donald with forumby, of of and and Rhode law venue Textron 1100032 [Financial]'s under this enforcement o f any o f G u a r a n t o r ' s guaranty." On M a r c h 5, 2 0 0 7 , security Financial would Acquisition and obligations ("the 2007 Textron and would and i n o t h e r and debt. The of 2007 forum-selection i n p a r a g r a p h s 11 a n d 16 o f t h e Kaufmann, Development, and that the r e s u l t i n g repossession Cosper, a credit inventory i n the inventory i d e n t i c a l to those agreement. provided Martin's to secure contained provisions Martin's Logan into Financial agreement interest assets entered Textron 2007 finance a security agreement with The Logan M a r t i n ' s 2006 Logan M a r t i n agreement agreement"). receive obligations LLC Seibert, ("ABM"), and guaranteed u n d e r t h e 2007 a g r e e m e n t . ABM Logan Each o f t h e i r g u a r a n t y agreements i n c l u d e d c h o i c e - o f - l a w and f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n provisions identical executed with to t h e 2006 those i n the guaranty agreement. On May 8, 2 0 0 8 , L o g a n M a r t i n a n d R y a n C r e e k under i t s new another ("the credit 2008 Financial name, Alabama and s e c u r i t y agreement"). would f i n a n c e agreements Boating, agreement Under with t h e 2008 the a c q u i s i t i o n 5 jointly Acquisitions, entered Textron agreement, into Financial Textron o f inventory f o r both 1100032 companies and inventory 2008 and other agreement provisions 2006 contained agreement. and agreement. to Logan financing subsequently approximately Martin. On Boating and Textron Textron first due to Financial and 16 to The of guaranteed under the Alabama the 2008 choice-of-law those the contained in in Acquisitions and U n d e r t h e 2007 a g r e e m e n t and ultimately inventory financing 2008, T e x t r o n "turbulence" be them pricing to Logan Alabama although the credit marine markets, structures i n c r e a s i n g t h e i n t e r e s t r a t e s A l a b a m a B o a t i n g and 6 to that, committed i n worldwide changing provided F i n a n c i a l wrote advised "remain[ed] firmly would Creek Financial and Textron $4,200,000 Ryan in Martin 2008 a g r e e m e n t , approximately to Textron O c t o b e r 24, Financial industry," provided $2,500,000 Logan 11 agreements c o n t a i n e d identical their forum-selection obligations to Alabama B o a t i n g . agreement, debt. and Kaufmann 2006 a g r e e m e n t and inventory resulting the in agreements. ultimately 2008 and clauses Financial interests i n paragraphs Martin's guaranty Under the the those Their guaranty earlier security repossession Cosper forum-selection their receive assets to secure identical Boating's and would and Logan M a r t i n 1100032 paid under 2008 agreement Kaufmann the 2006 agreement, (collectively, signed acknowledging agreements Textron of c o n t i n u e d would "no this Martin, 27, the financing marine in from Financial companies, changes. f i n a n c i n g to outstanding paid. On a that but i t that Financial the canceled that as the Logan Textron intended i t marine Boating, maintain and result debt under Alabama guarantors products to concealed stop that them. Textron describes F i n a n c i a l ' s v i c e p r e s i d e n t , whom as a "workout t h a t , as o f A p r i l principal She be 2008 Logan M a r t i n j o i n t l y agreements. t h a t the must s t a t e d i n an a f f i d a v i t outstanding both a d v i s i n g t h e m t h a t , as October Susan Anderson, and of proposed wholesale various knew Textron time 2009; and Financial information behalf the agreements"). f i n a n c i n g a g r e e m e n t s w o u l d be agreements and on financing and F i n a n c i a l wrote Alabama B o a t i n g provide i n d u s t r y " ; t h a t the financing "the agreement, "negative economic c o n d i t i o n s , " Textron longer of February 2007 Financial's December 31, 2008, T e x t r o n Logan M a r t i n a g a i n , the also owed T e x t r o n and interest stated 7 that account 2010, Alabama Financial under Textron manager," Boating $1,553,944 i n the financing Financial had 1100032 unsuccessfully Martin 23, s o u g h t payment f o r s e v e r a l months 2009, Martin Textron advising i n 2009. Financial them from Alabama B o a t i n g Subsequently, wrote Alabama that they were on Boating in and Logan December and default Logan of the f i n a n c i n g agreements and t h a t t h e i r d e b t s had been a c c e l e r a t e d and demanding the debts. letter immediate surrender Textron Financial t o C o s p e r , Kaufmann, the debts of the c o l l a t e r a l copied Seibert, and demanded payment t h e December a n d ABM from them. securing 23, 2009, as g u a r a n t o r s On M a r c h 2 6 , of 2010, T e x t r o n F i n a n c i a l a g a i n w r o t e Alabama B o a t i n g and Logan M a r t i n advising them that they agreements; demanding Martin the and were i n default payment guarantors; under the from Alabama B o a t i n g and demanding financing and surrender Logan of the collateral. On April 7, 2010, Textron Financial commenced an action a g a i n s t Alabama B o a t i n g and Logan M a r t i n i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s District Court Northern District"), pursuant to Rule P.; § and action"). f o r the 64, 6-6-250 Northern stating F e d . R. et claims C i v . P.; seq., Textron F i n a n c i a l District of Alabama sounding Rule A l a . Code in ("the detinue 64, A l a . R . C i v . 1975 ("the detinue sought 1) a d e t e r m i n a t i o n that i t 8 1100032 had a right to security in inventory i t had of the On seizure; the the defenses, filed Martin; collateral agreements, f i n a n c e d under those No specifically, agreements; t o a money and judgment the writ was asserted. asserted various affirmative fraud. 2 9 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e same d a y A l a b a m a B o a t i n g a n d L o g a n their answer i t s predecessor, Cosper; Kaufmann; parent; Textron Textron Financial, action"). several 2) a as and Logan M a r t i n answered in the Ryan and detinue Creek claims Financial; 1 action, another entity, Circuit the defendants, Logan Creek Textron an e m p l o y e e o f Court The c o m p l a i n t i n t h e S t . C l a i r against Ryan against the a n d J a m e s M. R e g a n , i n the S t . C l a i r Alabama Acquisitions; B o a t i n g C e n t e r , I n c . , commenced an a c t i o n Clair identified judgment g r a n t i n g i t p o s s e s s i o n of right complaint including On A p r i l Boating; the 29, 2010, Alabama B o a t i n g detinue Martin of financing a n d 3) a f i n a l collateral. April possession ("the S t . action including stated fraud, Except f o r statements i n the complaint i n the S t . C l a i r a c t i o n s t a t i n g t h a t R y a n C r e e k B o a t i n g C e n t e r , I n c . , i s an A l a b a m a c o r p o r a t i o n d o i n g b u s i n e s s i n S t . C l a i r C o u n t y , none of t h e r e c o r d s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t i d e n t i f y Ryan C r e e k Boating Center, I n c . , or e x p l a i n i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the v a r i o u s e n t i t i e s and i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d i n t h e S t . C l a i r action. 1 9 1100032 suppression, fiduciary On negligence, duty, May civil 26, stipulation so, parties the claims would June 1, "no Rhode I s l a n d Financial stated and sued Alabama and of recovery under detinue that in On Logan the United ("the action, Textron against Alabama against the the action. Rhode I s l a n d contract claims doing Boating, ABM Rhode I s l a n d and and of filed In Financial's St. Clair District of b r e a c h of Martin seeking the action action. prejudice Seibert, the detinue of t h a t without the In claims Logan guarantors for action"). the Textron Financial Court fraud. e f f e c t on" Kaufmann, District promissory to that dismissed Textron breach dismissal stipulated Cosper, Boating of the contract, and parties be 2010, Martin, States the w o u l d have dismissal of conspiracy, 2010, a joint breach each various of the guaranty agreements. On and June Regan 3, the clauses i n the to alleged state the (collectively dismiss also 2010, a St. claim Textron action Clair the parent; "the financing that Textron based agreements. Textron defendants") on the The which relief 10 could moved to forum-selection Textron c o m p l a i n t i n the S t . C l a i r upon Financial; be defendants action granted. failed The 1100032 plaintiffs i n the S t . C l a i r amended t h e i r and to complaint state action responded and s u b s e q u e n t l y t o a d d ABM a n d S e i b e r t a s of fraud On August 13, 2010, after extensive b r i e f i n g by the p a r t i e s , the t r i a l court denied the against additional the Textron Textron claims defendants. defendants' motion to dismiss Northern District upon w h i c h Textron clauses by f i l i n g relief and t h a t defendants mandamus d i r e c t i n g claims against asserted the p l a i n t i f f s petitioned the t r i a l them without i n t h e Rhode I s l a n d Standard This Court has this action, i t s r i g h t s under the the detinue c o u l d be g r a n t e d . suppression the S t . C l a i r f i n d i n g t h a t Textron F i n a n c i a l had waived forum-selection and plaintiffs action i n the had s t a t e d claims On O c t o b e r Court 8, 2 0 1 0 , t h e for a writ of court to dismiss the p l a i n t i f f s ' prejudice so t h a t they may action. of Review stated: " ' [ A ] p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e proper vehicle f o r o b t a i n i n g r e v i e w o f an o r d e r d e n y i n g e n f o r c e m e n t o f an " o u t b o u n d " f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e when i t i s p r e s e n t e d i n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . ' E x p a r t e D.M. W h i t e C o n s t r . C o . , 806 S o . 2 d 3 7 0 , 372 (Ala. 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e E x p a r t e CTB, I n c . , 782 S o . 2 d 1 8 8 , 190 ( A l a . 2000). '[A] w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy, w h i c h r e q u i r e s t h e p e t i t i o n e r to d e m o n s t r a t e a clear, legal right to the r e l i e f s o u g h t , o r an a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' Ex p a r t e P a l m 11 be 1100032 H a r b o r Homes, I n c . , 798 S o . 2 d 6 5 6 , 660 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . '[T]he review of a t r i a l court's ruling on t h e question of enforcing a forum-selection clause i s f o r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . ' E x p a r t e D.M. White C o n s t r . C o . , 806 S o . 2 d a t 3 7 2 . " E x p a r t e L e a s e c o m m C o r p . , 8 8 6 S o . 2 d 5 8 , 62 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . Court a has a l s o e x p l a i n e d t h a t , i n c o n s i d e r i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r writ o f mandamus Court i s presented trial court's Reed, when [Ms. 1 0 8 1 6 1 9 , 2010)("The involves of ruling de novo. Sept. See, e.g., Regions order questions of So. 3d issuing the appeal George v. Sims, ("Because t h e f a c t s and this of law, i treviews the Bank , a writ of law. Therefore, a p p l i e s to both pure are undisputed 30, 2010] court's questions novo s t a n d a r d . " ) ; 2004) the facts with pure questions circuit only review with This (Ala. of mandamus t h e same standard and t h e p e t i t i o n : 888 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 4 , 1 2 2 6 are undisputed v. a de (Ala. a n d we a r e p r e s e n t e d law, our standard of review i s de novo."). Analysis I. Textron "In 347 which Financial [ P r o f e s s i o n a l I n s . Corp. v.] S u t h e r l a n d , (Ala. 1997)], an this 'outbound' Court adopted forum-selection 12 [700 So. 2 d the majority clause rule, i s upheld by unless 1100032 the party would challenging unfair the hold be or parties CTB, Inc., trial court clause unreasonable to parte the d i d not their 782 under bargain. So. hold clearly 2d 700 establishes the that the circumstances So. 1 88 , 1 90- 91 2d at (Ala. 351." 2000 ). forum-selection h e l d t h a t T e x t r o n F i n a n c i a l had forum-selection clauses Northern D i s t r i c t and dismiss that based Our cited, a on research an Alabama forum-selection under a contract has by denied the detinue action in the Textron d e f e n d a n t s ' motion an in the the to holding. not case d i s c l o s e d , and dealing clause. generally, with waiver Regarding this the Court p a r t i e s have i n the the waiver has context of stated: "'To c o n s t i t u t e a waiver, t h e r e must i n t e n t i o n to r e l i n q u i s h the r i g h t , or 13 not of rights "The q u e s t i o n o f w a i v e r , t h e v o l u n t a r y s u r r e n d e r of a known right, is in the main a question of intention, and the authorities hold t h a t , to be e f f e c t u a l , i t m u s t be m a n i f e s t e d i n some u n e q u i v o c a l manner; i f not e x p r e s s , t h e n by s u c h l a n g u a g e or conduct as to evince clearly the intention to s u r r e n d e r . B e n n e c k e v . I n s u r a n c e Co., 105 U.S. 355, 26 L. E d . 990 [ ( 1 8 8 1 ) ] ; B a l f o u r v. P a r k i n s o n (C.C.) 84 F e d . 8 5 5 , 861 [(1898)]. Quoting Sanborn, J . , i n R i c e v . F i d e l i t y & D e p o s i t Co., 103 F e d . 4 2 7 , 435, 43 C.C.A. 2 7 0 , 278 [(1900)]: be Ex Instead, waived i t s r i g h t s under filing to The clauses the f i n a n c i n g agreements were u n f a i r or u n r e a s o n a b l e . it that i t 1100032 t h e r e must be w o r d s o r a c t s c a l c u l a t e d t o induce the other contracting party to b e l i e v e , and which d e c e i v e him i n t o t h e b e l i e f , t h a t t h e h o l d e r o f t h e r i g h t has abandoned i t . ' "'A w a i v e r circumstances, u n e q u i v o c a l and Am. & E n g . Law, Isom v. Johnson, In that, will n o t be i m p l i e d from slight but must be evidenced by an d e c i s i v e a c t , c l e a r l y p r o v e d . ' 29 p. 1105." 2 0 5 A l a . 1 5 7 , 1 5 9 - 6 0 , 87 S o . 5 4 3 , 545 (1 9 2 0 ) . t h e i r mandamus p e t i t i o n , by f i l i n g Textron the detinue Financial selection clauses action d i d not waive expressly granted repossess the collateral a right Textron Alabama. The f i n a n c i n g the to repossess right which i t s rights Financial to could granted argue District, the forum- because Financial subject agreements under agreements Textron made defendants i n the Northern of the financing agreements agreements, the Textron those the right the financing assert Textron to only i n Financial t h e i n v e n t o r y i t had f i n a n c e d and i n i t held a security interest. I t i s undisputed that the i n v e n t o r y o f Alabama B o a t i n g and Logan M a r t i n , t h e c o l l a t e r a l Textron is Financial located Textron sought i n Alabama. defendants state to repossess In their that 14 i n the detinue mandamus "Textron action, petition, Financial the could not 1100032 have filed i t s repossession Alabama." (Petition, Rule 64, considering law of Fed. a t 24.) R. We C i v . P., anywhere where requires the court and Alabama laws p r o v i d e other than agree. the federal a c t i o n s f o r the s e i z u r e of property the state Island action to apply "the i s located." remedies courts Both Rhode f o r the recovery p r o p e r t y t h a t c a n be f o u n d w i t h i n t h e r e s p e c t i v e s t a t e s . e.g., R . I . G e n . Laws § 3 4 - 2 1 - 2 (1956)("The d i s t r i c t issue writs t h e goods replevied less, of r e p l e v i n are valued and venue at where five thousand o f t h e a c t i o n may be district c o u r t where t h e y were t a k e n , Implicit i n this within state. the Section jurisdiction 6-6-250, of a A l a . Code i s commenced f o r t h e r e c o v e r y specie ... i t i s the that court chattels dollars may to be ($5,000) or i n any d i v i s i o n of the attached or detained."). the s t a t u t e to govern recovery of property action summons See, l a n g u a g e i s t h e p r e m i s e t h a t t h e Rhode I s l a n d L e g i s l a t u r e enacted found and of the mentioned i n the defendant gives duty sheriff of the district bond payable into of personal clerk to to take h i s possession that "When an chattels i n endorse to the p l a i n t i f f 15 in 1975, p r o v i d e s : i s required complaint court the on the property unless " the See 1100032 also § goods in 6-6-255 and chattels, other cases, prosecute the ("If the property property the he officer as complaint."). the property property Alabama, any Alabama Financial could could as may declare f o r the thus t a k i n g and i s the sought filed could to of be of action was that property in lay in thus, action that Because repossess i t s repossession a recovery State. found; of the by premise the s t a t u t e to govern within this and value detention language Financial have the his found property of commenced in this be then recovery action for repossession the appear plaintiff had Textron where the to Implicit that take defendant the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e enacted of and summon t h e damages f o r t h e he find the and i f to may a c t i o n alone and fails Textron only in Alabama. The state, of forum-selection clauses i n p a r t : "Debtor consents the Courts Providence, for the connection the word of the State Rhode I s l a n d and District with this of Rhode the U n i t e d Island Agreement." this f i n a n c i n g agreements to the e x c l u s i v e of Rhode "exclusive" in i n the The Island, jurisdiction sitting States D i s t r i c t for a l l 16 Court purposes p l a i n t i f f s contend provision prohibited in in that Textron 1100032 Financial from f i l i n g repossession--in in Rhode court any a c t i o n - - i n c l u d i n g an a c t i o n any c o u r t Island. The e x c e p t t h e f e d e r a l and s t a t e plaintiffs i n the St. C l a i r seeking argue the d e t i n u e a c t i o n was b r o u g h t f o r a " p u r p o s e [ ] i n c o n n e c t i o n with th[e] the and action that by District, Agreement[s]," was governed filing the Textron by and, therefore, that the forum-selection detinue Financial concluded trial the detinue correctly that that [financing] action also courts action waived in the i t s rights clauses, Northern under those contract, have clauses. However, empowered beyond lacked the parties the federal their could or state authority. not, courts Because reading would the forum-selection render collateral portions Textron impossible. of the and should have drafted of property repossession such a agreements courts i n Alabama, Financial's Under to act out-of-state as t h e p l a i n t i f f s financing The p l a i n t i f f s Island clauses F i n a n c i a l to repossess the property nugatory. i n Rhode those authority to order repossession by suggest of construction, authorizing securing those Textron i t s l o a n w o u l d be contend that Textron F i n a n c i a l an express 17 the exception to the could forum- 1100032 selection an clauses allowing repossession appropriate agreements jurisdiction. expressly grant repossess i t s c o l l a t e r a l , the financing provisions of agreements a field so of However, Textron and actions the Financial t h i s Court w i l l as to to proceed deprive operation. This financing the avoid the in right to construing repossession Court has stated: "Terms of a written instrument should be c o n s t r u e d i n p a r i m a t e r i a and a c o n s t r u c t i o n a d o p t e d t h a t g i v e s e f f e c t to a l l terms used. F e d e r a l Land B a n k o f New O r l e a n s v . T e r r a R e s o u r c e s , I n c . , 37 3 So. 2d 314 (Ala. 1979). I n c o n s i s t e n t p a r t s in a c o n t r a c t a r e t o be r e c o n c i l e d , i f s u s c e p t i b l e of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n ; however, i f t h a t i s not p o s s i b l e , a n y d o u b t w i l l be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f t h e first p a r t , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i n s t r u m e n t as a w h o l e . S c h e r f v . R e n f r o e , 266 A l a . 3 5 , 93 So. 2d 402 (1957)." Sullivan, 667 So. A Long 2d 722, & 1995). in Inc., that selection clause a l l e g e d b r e a c h of 656 case, The stating the Elec. Generating Co., 1995). of Appeal Rent-A-Car, So. 2d Advantage leased ("Prestige"). Southern Court Prestige ( " A d v a n t a g e " ) , had Inc. v. (Ala. District Sales, In Hagerty 725 Florida circumstances Rental & 541 Car considered Inc. v. Advantage (Fla. Dist. Rental that agreement actions agreement, to enforce 18 Ct. App. Inc. Rent-A-Car, included brought the Car Sales, & automobiles to P r e s t i g e lease similar a based forumon agreement, an or 1100032 to declare i n the in a the parties' s t a t e o f New federal be brought York. Advantage s u b s e q u e n t l y sued Prestige court rights i n New contract and seeking However, the "New thereunder York, to s t a t i n g claims recovery York were of court the of breach leased concluded that vehicles. i t a u t h o r i t y to o r d e r r e p l e v i n of the automobiles since located York." 656 complaint in outside Advantage state subsequently repossession from the of the of New filed vehicles a and obtained the Florida court. Prestige appeal, argue[d] that had no t h e y were 2d at Florida of 543. seeking replevin appealed. "On in So. a writ of finding allow[ed] operated paragraph Advantage to exclusive " that Prestige 656 waive to ... jurisdiction So. 2d at 20 of retake the 544. trial New 23, York The for erred which of which the Florida court agreement, lease possession paragraph in the the vehicles, provide[d] parties' District for duties Court of A p p e a l a n a l y z e d the s e e m i n g l y c o n f l i c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s , s t a t i n g : "Prestige is correct that forum-selection clauses are generally enforceable. ... Here the parties selected New York as their forum for s e t t l i n g d i s p u t e s under the l e a s e , u n l e s s otherwise expressly w a i v e d by them. In p a r a g r a p h 20, the parties expressly a g r e e d t h a t one of Advantage's remedies i n the event of default i s to retake p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e v e h i c l e s and Prestige expressly 19 1100032 a u t h o r i z e d Advantage to e n t e r i t s p r e m i s e s where the v e h i c l e s were l o c a t e d i n o r d e r to take p o s s e s s i o n . The p a r t i e s w e r e a w a r e t h a t t h e v e h i c l e s w e r e t o be l o c a t e d i n F l o r i d a and n o t New Y o r k . A New York c o u r t cannot order r e p o s s e s s i o n of p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d o u t s i d e i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . ... T h u s , t h e o n l y l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n of the c o n t r a c t i s the p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d t h a t A d v a n t a g e had the r i g h t - - t h r o u g h a p p r o p r i a t e court proceedings i n Florida--to retake possession o f t h e v e h i c l e s i n F l o r i d a . To r e q u i r e t h e p a r t i e s to seek repossession i n New York which has no a u t h o r i t y to order s e i z u r e of the p r o p e r t y would effectively e l i m i n a t e the remedy of repossession b a r g a i n e d f o r i n the c o n t r a c t . " F u r t h e r m o r e , p a r a g r a p h 23 c o u l d not confer jurisdiction on a New York c o u r t f o r r e p l e v i n of p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d o u t s i d e t h e s t a t e . ... R e p l e v i n i s a possessory a c t i o n and t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e s i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r . ... An a c t i o n for r e p l e v i n cannot be successfully maintained u n l e s s t h e p r o p e r t y i s w i t h i n t h e s t a t e and s u b j e c t to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of i t s c o u r t s . ... Thus the p a r t i e s c o u l d n o t h a v e c o n f e r r e d i n rem jurisdiction on t h e New Y o r k c o u r t t o h a n d l e t h e r e p l e v i n a c t i o n of v e h i c l e s l o c a t e d i n F l o r i d a . " 656 We So. find 2d at this Metroplex, 544 reasoning Inc., (2004)(declining Louisiana (footnote as 356 to forum omitted; persuasive. 14 6 S.W.3d 8 61 , a forum-selection clause mandating for a 80-81 , claim also under by agreement consent in a be conferred subject-matter jurisdiction jurisdiction cannot 20 864 Arkansas " P a r t i e s may personal v. the materialmen's l i e n statute, s t a t i n g : to added). Rentals 7 6, See emphasis RMP Ark. apply second given court, merely but by 1100032 agreement implies of the parties. consent confer to personal subject-matter Only to as enforce ... W h i l e court BQ J u n c t i o n , Ohio App. MPR and t o o r d e r , d i d not waive Ohio. was be the f o r MPR forced lease Junction brought a the agreed, i n Marion (2010) entry i n Ohio relinquishment' property LLC v. County, find that to l i t i g a t e states that was action i n of MPR's by t h e s t a t e o f Ohio, i t s property. forum-selection clearly ("We and d e t a i n e r MPR issues clause, such should n o t now arising to matters from which BBQ a r e t o be Indiana."). recognizing that t h e s t a t e and f e d e r a l i n Rhode I s l a n d c a n n o t a c t b e y o n d t h e i r effect jurisdiction o f f o r u m b e c a u s e t h e company 'voluntary to repossess when , i t was a r e q u i r e m e n t , to remain Therefore, proceedings Middletown Park Realty, the f o r c i b l e not contractual right; in order i n rem i t cannot f o r e c l o s u r e on r e a l N.E.2d i t s choice to bring This ... clause I n c . , [MS. CA 2 0 0 9 - 1 0 - 2 5 8 , May 1 7 , 2 0 1 0 ] , obligated over has s u b j e c t - m a t t e r located within i t s borders."); Bar jurisdiction, jurisdiction an A r k a n s a s the liens a forum-selection both to the forum-selections a u t h o r i t y , and g i v i n g clauses i n the f i n a n c i n g agreements g r a n t i n g Textron 21 courts and t o those Financial a terms right 1100032 of r e p o s s e s s i o n , the through intended c o n s t r u c t i o n of i s that the p a r t i e s to the f i n a n c i n g Textron appropriate possession court Financial proceedings of i t s c o l l a t e r a l to have light jurisdiction" i n Alabama. of the separate conferring a right exclusion of jurisdiction. jurisdiction Recognizing The to i n the the In order any Rhode seize read forum-selection f o r s e i z u r e , as the clauses, agreements operating to having concurrent Island courts have concurrent property no located in Alabama. t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f an a c t i o n t o s e i z e p r o p e r t y i n Textron F i n a n c i a l a r i g h t to recover the separate contractual provisions granting i t scollateral while a f f o r d i n g a f i e l d of operation to the f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n The plaintiffs contend not waive forum-selection the a c t i o n "encompassed that, even i f Textron provisions, the also clauses. Financial detinue the e n t i r e t y of the p a r t i e s ' d i s p u t e " and, therefore, that Textron and in court respects clauses term other Alabama did retake to harmonize p r o v i s i o n s of the f i n a n c i n g t o a remedy right-¬ i n Alabama--to p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e f i n a n c i n g a g r e e m e n t s , we "exclusive the conclude that the l o g i c a l f i n a n c i n g agreements agreements the we F i n a n c i a l v i o l a t e d the f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n s e l e c t e d Alabama as t h e f o r u m f o r r e s o l v i n g " t h e 22 1100032 full dispute arising agreement[s]." (Answer, contention, the allegations in Logan and Martin 2) the were Financial Although Textron possession, contract, and fraud. sought did did Moreover, although defenses to the not i t a they filed separate related to agreements their the but brought Clair limited to the of the claims from they did 23 to breach of guarantors. any I n s t e a d , on t h e detinue not asserted file same action, Circuit they Court--an parties of i t s right Logan M a r t i n additional question however, collateral. the under The asserting of transactions against a d d i t i o n a l defendants. was action, and and f i n a n c i n g agreements Financial. St. by Boating answer any action, parties' the this Financial's r e q u i r e d to prove answer i n the a c t i o n i n the Alabama recovery counterclaims against Textron day Textron detinue Alabama B o a t i n g detinue support 1) possession assert seek To security Martin's the only and that Logan In credit 21.) action F i n a n c i a l was i t nor 17, i n d e f a u l t under in Textron the reference detinue Boating based of at plaintiffs Alabama defenses out the and filed action financing asserted detinue action, therefore, possession and did not 1100032 "encompass the plaintiffs contend. Because to obtain Textron granted that could to forum-selection 545. been filing showing of in filing the clauses. the only Isom, court Textron clauses of In the financing final petition, the rescission of their claims Because Martin Ryan are rescinded, those the we v. not fall their contend w i t h i n the only parties restrict our Santa to Textron not 157, a right conduct under 87 the So. in concluding answer that at that forum-selection the of Beach 24 to they and, the their Boating, this that clauses. and sought Logan to be contention to argument Development sought therefore, agreements of mandamus have forum-selection examination support Rosa was Ala. A c q u i s i t i o n s , Alabama In a Alabama, under the f i n a n c i n g agreements Creek parties. Vankineni of plaintiffs do action exercising i t s rights 205 the agreements. paragraph the in erred F i n a n c i a l waived i t s r i g h t s the detinue was action surrender See trial the as f i n a n c i n g agreements, detinue to dispute" collateral, the intent Accordingly, parties' exercised of an the the i t under have Financial's of Financial, repossession right clearly entirety Corp. they II, cite [Ms. 1100032 1080908 Sept. 3, 2010] the f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n "'any So. an action 3d enforce . at relate to Based the Boating, and of Financial claims claims in the this Court held clauses Vankineni has financing shown the financing a do the fall Textron Financial, shown t h a t are subject the legal i t by forum-selection Boating, 25 the financing within as a party claims and the those clauses and to Alabama forum-selection the Textron dismissal of plaintiffs. concern Financial, Logan to asserted Accordingly, right agreements--Textron Alabama to agreements. against the expressly is distinguishable, rescission has clear in the clauses. foregoing, asserted Acquisitions, with" that scope of Ryan Creek A c q u i s i t i o n s , i t s s u c c e s s o r , the which contract." w i t h i n the connection seeking Logan M a r t i n Because the fall the forum-selection forum-selection i t by to d i d not Accordingly, against the language, The f i n a n c i n g agreements, clauses that " a l l purposes B a s e d on the on clause. plaintiffs' of in a g r e e m e n t s , h o w e v e r , a r e much b r o a d e r a n d agreements. scope (Ala. 2010), a p r o v i s i o n ' of action for rescission financing 3d clause e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t i t a p p l i e d to to forum-selection the So. the parties Ryan Martin--and Creek do not 1100032 expressly encompass separately require consider dismissal nonparties II. The to Other The other the whether of the the or entities, we forum-selection claims asserted by must clauses and against f i n a n c i n g agreements. Textron Textron individuals Defendants parent and Regan, Textron Financial's employee, c l a i m the b e n e f i t of the f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n c l a u s e s argue that their against them clauses. As clauses does financing motion should to have dismiss been the plaintiffs' dismissed pursuant s t a t e d above, the language of the not expressly agreements. encompass However, the claims to those forum-selection nonparties clauses do to "to the exclusive jurisdiction Rhode Island, sitting United States District for a l l (Emphasis purposes in in the Courts Providence, Rhode Court of f o r the connection District with 26 the Ryan Martin--consent of the Island State of and the of Rhode I s l a n d this Agreement." added.) "When i n t e r p r e t i n g a c o n t r a c t , f i r s t l o o k to the p l a i n language of determine whether that language i s c o u r t s h o u l d g i v e the terms of the the state that " d e b t o r s " - - d e f i n e d by t h e v a r i o u s f i n a n c i n g a g r e e m e n t s as C r e e k A c q u i s i t i o n s , A l a b a m a B o a t i n g , and Logan and t h i s C o u r t must t h e c o n t r a c t and ambiguous. '[A] agreement t h e i r 1100032 c l e a r and p l a i n m e a n i n g and s h o u l d presume t h a t t h e p a r t i e s i n t e n d e d what the terms of the agreement clearly state.' E x p a r t e Dan Tucker Auto Sales, I n c . , 718 So. 2 d 3 3 , 36 ( A l a . 1998) (citing Pacific E n t e r s . O i l Co. (USA) v . H o w e l l P e t r o l e u m C o r p . , 614 So. 2 d 409 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . " Turner (Ala. v. West 2004). Alabama parent In and inventory related include of the shown a clear The Seibert, that acts Acquisitions, therefore, the are financing forum-selection asserted debtors," legal right them by clauses the Textron to those the fraud and of Boating, and parent Boating, "debtors agreements. against the by Textron Textron Alabama asserted 335 financing Alabama Acquisitions, 332, the of Financial's Creek against and ... in Because i s broad Textron parent and dismissal of the enough parent Regan the to and have claims plaintiffs. Parties guaranty and various Textron Creek claims "the Other in allege 2d Acquisitions, a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t the the by III. Martin Creek claims with" Regan asserted to Ryan So. The Martin, language Logan 893 Ryan by connection Inc., complaint, engaged f o r Ryan Regan Logan and Regan Logan M a r t i n . Apartments, their Boating, negligence and Ridge ABM a g r e e m e n t s e n t e r e d i n t o by C o s p e r , (collectively, 27 "the guarantors") Kaufmann, include 1100032 independent, those a n d much n a r r o w e r , i n the financing guaranty agreements agreements. state: jurisdiction and venue with [Financial]'s Textron obligations provision under merely this forum-selection clauses Specifically, "Guarantor o f Rhode enforcement guaranty." consents i t does to the i n connection o f any o f (Emphasis t o venue; each of the consents Island courts than Guarantor's added.) This not provide f o r e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n as i s t h e case w i t h t h e f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n clauses found petition, i n the f i n a n c i n g agreements. the Textron defendants u p o n w h i c h we c o u l d c o n c l u d e have In t h e i r not stated mandamus any b a s i s that the forum-selection clauses of the f i n a n c i n g agreements b i n d the g u a r a n t o r s . We n o t e that Textron against the Financial guarantors Whether independently Textron a separate action each of Accordingly, at this of those actions may of the other i s a question not before defendants dismissal filed i n Rhode I s l a n d s e e k i n g r e c o v e r y u n d e r t h e g u a r a n t y agreements. proceeding. has the asserted guarantors. 28 us i n t h i s stage of the proceedings, the h a v e n o t shown a c l e a r claims proceed legal against right them to the by the 1100032 Finally, confused of as t o Ryan C r e e k w i t h Ryan Creek Boating Center, Acquisitions, Inc., the former name A l a b a m a B o a t i n g C e n t e r s , I n c . ) , we n o t e d a b o v e t h a t n o n e o f the materials presented to this Court Boating Center, Inc., or explains various entities and i n d i v i d u a l s Notably, that the Creek financing could identifies Boating Center, agreements. defendants conclude have that involved i n this not stated mandamus any b a s i s forum-selection f i n a n c i n g agreements e x t e n d t o Ryan Creek Accordingly, defendants at this stage asserted against to the litigation. Court shows petition, upon them which clauses the we of the Boating Center, Inc. of the proceedings, h a v e n o t shown a c l e a r l e g a l the claims to this Creek I n c . , was a p a r t y t o a n y o f In t h e i r the Ryan i t srelationship none o f t h e d o c u m e n t s p r e s e n t e d Ryan Textron of I n c . ( n o t t o be the Textron right to the dismissal by Ryan Creek Boating Center, Inc. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we conclude h a v e shown a c l e a r the a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them i n the St. C l a i r Acquisitions, Boating, Ryan Creek Alabama 29 right the defendants claims legal that Textron to the dismissal of action and Logan by Martin, 1100032 and that dismiss the as defendants trial to by court the erred claims those i n denying asserted the claims Ryan Creek petition to asserted Boating Center, i n part, grant vacate them Inc. the Textron the Textron r i g h t to the d i s m i s s a l by the guarantors Accordingly, i t i n p a r t , and d i r e c t i t s A u g u s t 13, 2010, o r d e r insofar Ryan Creek A c q u i s i t i o n s , Alabama B o a t i n g , to enter those an o r d e r plaintiffs dismissing without against Cobb, C . J . , and S t u a r t Murdock, J . , concurs specially. or by deny the court as i t r e l a t e s to and Logan M a r t i n and the claims of defendants. DENIED I N PART; WRIT and B o l i n , 30 we the t r i a l prejudice the Textron P E T I T I O N GRANTED I N PART AND to However, plaintiffs. against motion against d e f e n d a n t s h a v e n o t shown a c l e a r l e g a l of their J J . , concur. ISSUED. 1100032 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e I write plaintiffs (the (concurring specially to (the Alabama foreign parties) selection clauses federal district specially). comment parties) on that waived t h e i r the argument the Textron rights by defendants under the court i n Alabama "encompassed the e n t i r e t y of The m a i n o p i n i o n rejects this based that filed district did the r a t i o n a l e court not based l i m i t e d to a detinue of the p a r t i e s ' had however, encompassed no federal claim and dispute. I rejected the e n t i r e t y I w o u l d n o t be any r i g h t s u n d e r t h e f o r u m - s e l e c t i o n waived under that action the circumstances the Textron defendants presented reliance by detinue action had believe that the the Alabama been filed filing of parties on i n Alabama. a 31 i n c l i n e d to clauses in this counterclaim i t and t h a t the f a c t (Also, by the had case. v o l u n t a r i l y dismissed Alabama d e t i n u e a c t i o n soon a f t e r they f i l e d was i n the rationale. i f the detinue the v i e w t h a t I note was the e n t i r e t y the p a r t i e s ' dispute, been the a c t i o n argument t h e a r g u m e n t o f t h e A l a b a m a p a r t i e s c a n be on t h i s Even of i n Alabama encompass agree that forum- because the o r i g i n a l detinue a c t i o n f i l e d i n the p a r t i e s ' d i s p u t e . " on the the there that the I do not Alabama 1100032 parties have i n the detinue been deemed a action, basis even i f i t had o c c u r r e d , for a waiver by could the Textron in Alabama defendants.) Again, however, "encompass[ing] a circumstance of the main circumstance in the filing the e n t i r e t y here opinion an action of the p a r t i e s ' presented, as of and extending had i t been p r e s e n t e d . the main o p i n i o n . 32 d i s p u t e " i s not I do n o t r e a d to the effect the h o l d i n g of I t h e r e f o r e concur such a fully

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.